Audio 3:17
Oppn accuses Govt of FOI interference

Naomi WoodleyUpdated
Mon Oct 01 08:39:00 EST 2012

The Federal Opposition has questioned why the Immigration Department sends documents requested under FOI laws to the Minister's office before they're released. It's not required under law, and the Office of the Information Commissioner says it's one reason for the significant delays by the Department in dealing with complex FOI requests.

Transcript

TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Opposition says a new report on Freedom of Information requests to the Immigration Department shows the Minister, Chris Bowen's office, is contributing to a culture of cover-up and political interference.

The Office of the Information Commissioner has released a report, finding there are significant delays by the Immigration Department in dealing with complex FOI requests.

It says sending documents to the Minister's office before they're released is one factor in the delays, despite that not being required under the law.

The Opposition's spokesman on government scrutiny, Jamie Briggs, is speaking here to AM's Naomi Woodley.

JAMIE BRIGGS: What I want Chris Bowen to do today is to explain why it is that he's involving himself in the release of some of the Government's most sensitive political information about their border protection mess.

It seems to me that this is a very convenient way for the Minister's office to be able to delay the release of significant and politically sensitive information relating to these issues.

I know myself, I've had six requests which were covered by this report, including a request which has been delayed up to over 500 days, we've been waiting for an answer.

Now that's just not good enough, 1), but 2) more worryingly, what is the Minister's office doing involving themselves, why are they politically interfering with this process?

NAOMI WOODLEY: But again, the report says there's nothing untoward in giving a heads up in principle, so how do you know that this has gone further than that?

JAMIE BRIGGS: Well because of the very fact that it's mentioned in there at all. It's not me that raises it, the information commissioner in the report, the information commissioner in the report goes to the lengths of actually reminding the Minister's office in the report that they don't have a role, they shouldn't have a role, they don't have a role at law.

So you have to ask the question, why is it that Chris Bowen is requiring the department to send this material to his office before this information is released. And is this a practice which occurs across the government? Because to me, that is not what the FOI act says, it doesn't involve the Minister's office in releases of the departmental information.

This is a, it appears on the surface to be a political effort to try and cover over very sensitive political information that the Government doesn't want released.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Will Opposition MPs, including yourself, continue to appear on Alan Jones' program given the comments that he made about the Prime Minister's father?

JAMIE BRIGGS: I've never appeared on Alan Jones' program.

NAOMI WOODLEY: And you don't intend to in the future?

JAMIE BRIGGS: Well I never have and I don't see any good reason to.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Was his apology sufficient?

JAMIE BRIGGS: Well he was right to apologise, the comments were disgraceful.

NAOMI WOODLEY: But do you consider that his apology was sufficient, it does appear to have been heavily qualified.

JAMIE BRIGGS: Well look I didn't see the apology and ultimately that's a matter for the Prime Minister. I think it was, I'm sure the remarks were hurtful to her and I think in that sense, he should have apologised and it was good at least that he did that.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Would you like to see either of your colleagues also not appear on his program?

JAMIE BRIGGS: Oh that's a matter for them.

NAOMI WOODLEY: And do you believe he should remain on the air?

JAMIE BRIGGS: Well that's a matter for 2GB, I'm not going to give them advice on what they should do but ultimately, his comments were unacceptable, they were hurtful I'm sure and he should have apologised and he did.